Legal Opinion
Rolec, Inc. v. Finlay Hydrascreen USA, Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided February 21, 1996No. Civil 95-203-P-HPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II
HORNBY, District Judge.
The issue in this case is whether Maine’s recently enacted Franchise Laws for Power Equipment, Machinery and Appliances can constitutionally be applied to a franchise agreement already in effect before the law was enacted. I conclude that applying the law retroactively in this case would be unconstitutional. I therefore Grant the motion to dismiss Count II.
Background
I read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The defendant Finlay Hydrascreen USAl, Inc. (“Finlay”) granted a franchise to the plaintiff…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational FundSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Minnesota Ass'n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Public WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Acadia Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- McDonald's Corp. v. NelsonDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cromeens, Holloman, Sibert, Inc. v. AB VolvoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Cloverdale Equipment Co. v. Manitowoc Engineering Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1997
- Frank Martin Sons, Inc. v. John Deere Construction & Forestry Co.District Court, D. Maine · 2008
- Pascale Service Corp. v. International Truck & Engine Corp.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2008
- Cromeens, Holloman, Sibert, Incorporated v. Ab VolvoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003